uwot wrote: ↑
Sat Mar 30, 2019 6:00 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑
Sat Mar 30, 2019 4:03 pm
Science is a religion.
Really? So if I were to ask you for the defining characteristics of a science, and of a religion, they would be the same? Fuck it, let's see.
Eodnhoj7, what are the defining characteristics of:
1. A science.
2. A religion.
Anyway, while Eodnhoj7 is sorting that out, yer might like to know that the Kuhn article is in the latest edition of Philosophy Now. https://philosophynow.org/issues/131/Th ... _1922-1996
Here is a short response because I am strapped for time...and quite frankly don't care enough because I am tired from life:
The defining characteristics of each phenomenon in itself (ie Science and Religion) is subject to a problematic nature due to its dependence upon group agreement. With that in mind, a common dictionary definition will be used:
-the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
-a particular area of science.
-a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.
-knowledge of any kind.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=science+de ... 9EAF1E16CF
-the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
-a particular system of faith and worship.
-a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=religion+d ... 1D37A214E3
Religion as Science:
- All systems, that which the human intellect is subject to, is in itself superhuman in the respect it is the measuring point (ie value system whether of an abstract or anthropomorphic nature) that exists as not just the potential of the human condition (ie union with God or "Truth") but effectively is the guiding force that determines the human course of action.
Both science and religion exist through "ritual", where ritual is a repeated course of action that forms the perspectives of the human condition which in turn forms the human condition itself.
The circularity of the scientific method mirrors the cyclical nature of repetitive rituals in religion. The formation of experiments is a repeated act where either the experiment changes or is repeated in a manner where the results exist repeatably (a high probability of occurence).
The rituals of religions are repeated at intervals as well, and while the ritual may change at a much slower rate in time (an experiment may change at a quicker rate than a ritual) the continuance of the ritual represents a means of perspective to ground the person's changing perspective. In simpler terms, while the experiment may represent a grounding framework in which reality may be interpreted consistently (ie an apple falling from a tree is a framework for gravity) the ritual may repeatably resurrect forgotten elements of the psyche that are hidden within the chaos of existence (ie the ritual of "confession" may bring back a clarity of conscience by observing the identity of self in its full form).
The ritual and experiment are both frameworks which defined the identity of reality through which the individual exists and as such is an extension of the individual him or herself.
Both require an "imaging" process of visualization. The "hypothesis" is strictly an interpretation of a phenomenon that quite literally is imaginary. Any spiritual experience, through deep contemplation or prayer, follows this same imaging process in which both exist not only as "experiences" grounded in deep observation/meditation but effectively exist as "visions" which are justified by there ability to align with empirical sensory reality.
The hypothesis and religious vision, in these respects, are both one and the same and that while acting as "definer's" or reality (as both represent some means of defining a specific phenomenon) they are justified simultaneously by the aligning to other definitions of reality. In simpler terms both are abstract/intuitive means of definition which are deemed as "true" relative to there symmetry to empirical reality...there alignment or unity to empirical reality is what determines them.
However a paradox occurs as empirical reality is subject to an infinite number of hypothesis's, explanations, much in the same manner a vision may be composed of specific symbolic qualities that have an infinite range of meanings.
Both Science and Religion, as systems of definition, are grounded in "knowledge" where the experiment and ritual exist not only as a revelatory process in themselves but effectively are revealed in accords to a perceived unity between the observer and higher reality.
The process of experimentation is revealed in accords with the experiments ability to give a unified interpretation of a specific phenomenon with the "process of experimentation" revealed in accords with time where people observed that "experimentation" allows a grounding of the human condition.
In simpler terms the repetitive actions of the human condition in its navigation through chaos revealed that experiments allow a certain consistency in interpretating and thus giving order to a percieved external and/or internal chaos.
The same applies for the ritual in religion where the ritual acts as a grounding point through which a person's perceptions may revolve (similiar to the nature of experimentation itself) and give a constant means of the individual to root their identity.
The nature of both the ritual and experiment, as grounded in identity where the "self" or a percieved "outside" self, is repeated as constant through time observes a maintaining property which gives unity and order to "being" by the process of definition alone where percievably seperate elements of reality are "united".
The experiment may observe something, such as "gravity", uniting seperate phenomenon (the apples movement away from the tree to the ground) in the same manner where a ritual observes the same phenomenon (the person going to confession to effectively integrate their percieved "failings", that which seperates the identity and integrity of the individual) of "uniting". This by nature is "definition".
In a dual respect this defintion, occuring through the experiment/ritual, observes a process of seperation where the experiment may seperate one definition from another (such as a framework defining lightwaves as not the sole cause of the apple falling from the tree) as well as the ritual (the ritual of worship observing that a person's lifestyle does not align with perceived virtues exhibited by the deity/dieties).
Both require "sacrifice" in a primordial sense whether observing the lab table and sacrifical altar as fundamentally the same process of taking a phenomenon and seperating it in order to gain deeper knowledge or power, or the nature of the individual giving both time and attention in a manner to the experimental/ritual process in manner in which they effective lose the subjective emotion part to it. In the scientific method this is called "objectivity" and in the religious ritual this is called transcendence. Objectivity and transcendence are both one and the same in these respects where the individual subjective self, ie the "ego", is annihiliate for the sake of percieving a more unified and fuller reality.
I can go further but you get the point.